admonish Hereticks and in case of Pertinacy to reject them from the Communion of the Church chap. 3. vers 10. from all which it is evident that this Apostolate of Titus consisted in his Ecclesiastical Superiority which was the very same in the Church of Crete that the first Apostles themselves had in the several Churches that were planted by them And accordingly he is declared by the concurrent Testimony of all Antiquity to be the first Bishop of that Church so Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 4. affirms him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have received Episcopal Authority over the Churches of Crete So also Theodoret. in Argum. Ep. ad Tit. tells us that he was ordained by S. Paul Bishop of Crete and so also S. Chrysostom S. Ierom and S. Ambrose and several others of the Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers This Episcopal Authority therefore which S. Paul gave Titus over the Church of Crete is another plain instance of the Apostles making Apostles or deriving to others their Apostolick Power and Superiority over particular Churches The fourth and last Instance I shall give is that of Timothy who as it appears by S. Pauls Epistles to him had Episcopal Authority over the Church of Ephesus and this not only over the Laity to command and teach 'em 1 Tim. 4.11 to receive Widows into the Churches Service or reject and refuse 'em 1 Tim. 5.4.9.16 and to oblige the Women to go modestly in their Apparel and keep silence in the Church 1 Tim. 2.11 12. but also over the Clergy to take care that sutable provision should be made for 'em 1 Tim. 5.17 that none should be admitted a Deacon till after competent trial nor Ordained an Elder till after he had well acquitted himself in the Deaconship 1 Tim. 3.10.13 to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over 'em to receive Accusations against 'em and if he found 'em guilty to put 'em to open shame 1 Tim. 5.19 20. and S. Paul charges him to exercise this his Jurisdiction without preferring one before another and without partiality ibid. ver 21. which if he had no Jurisdiction over 'em had been very impertinent and as he had Jurisdiction over the Clergy concredited to him so had he also the Authority of Ordaining 'em for the due exercise of which S. Paul gives him that necessary rule 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay hands suddenly on no man neither be partaker of other mens sins And that this Authority of his in the Ephesian Church over both the Laity and Clergy was given by S. Paul for a standing form of Government there is evident from hence because it was conferred on him after the Presbytery was formed and setled in that Church for in planting and cultivating this large and populous Church which extended it self over all the Proconsular Asia S. Paul had laboured for three years together with incredible diligence which is a much longer time than he spent in any other Church and therefore by this time to be sure he had not only constituted a Presbytery in it as he did in all other Churches Acts 14.23 but also reduced it to much greater perfection than any other that so in the constitution of it it might be a pattern to all other Churches and if so then to be sure the Government which he had now at last established in it was such as he intended should continue viz. by a single Person presiding over both Clergy and Laity And that de facto it was so we have not only the Authority of S. Pauls Epistles to Timothy but also the concurrent Testimony of all Ecclesiastical Antiquity for so Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. 3. cap. 4. tells us he was the first Bishop of the Province or Diocess of Ephesus and the Anonimous Author of his life in Photius that he was the first that acted as Bishop in Ephesus and that he was Ordained and Enthroned Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephesus by the great S. Paul and in the Council of Chalcedon twenty seven Bishops are said to have succeeded in that Chair from Timothy who was the first and Saint Chrysostom Hom. 15. in 1 Tim. 5.19 tells us that it is manifest Timothy was intrusted with a Church or rather with a whole Nation viz. that of Asia upon which account he is stiled by Theodoret in 1 Tim. 3.1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Timothy the Apostle of the Asiatiques and to name no more of the great numbers of Authorities that might be cited in the Apostolical Constitutions we are expresly told that he was Ordained Bishop of Ephesus by S. Paul. This therefore is another evident instance of the Apostles deriving down their Apostolick Authority Other instances might be given but these are sufficient to shew that the Apostles did not look upon our Saviours institution of a superiour Order of Ecclesiastical Officers as a temporary thing that was to expire with 'em but as a standing Model of Ecclesiastical Government since they derived to others that superiority over the Churches of Christ which he communicated to them For from all these instances it is most evident both that the Apostolical Office did not expire with the Twelve but was transferred by 'em to others and that that which is now called the Episcopacy was nothing else but the Apostolical Office derived from the Apostles to their successors for in the Primitive Language of the Church Bishops are generally stiled Apostles for which no other reason can be assigned but that they succeeded in the Apostolical superiority Thus as hath been shewn before S. Iames Epaphroditus Titus and Timothy are stiled Apostles in Scripture and by the Primitive Writers Clemens Bishop of Rome who was a Disciple of the Apostles is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Clemens the Apostle vid. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. 4. and Ignatius Bishop of Antioch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostle and Bishop by S. Chrysostom and Thaddaeus who was sent b◠S. Thomas to the Prince of Edessa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Eusebius and so are also S. Mark and S. Luke by Epiphanius and Theodoret lays it down for a general rule 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. those whom we now call Bishops were anciently called Apostles but in process of time the name of Apostle was left to them who were more strictly Apostles viz. the Twelve and the name of Bishop was restrained to those who were anciently called Apostles If therefore the practice of the Apostles proceeding upon the express institution of our Saviour be sufficient to found a Divine Right we have this you see to plead for a superiority and subordination of Ecclesiastical Offices since the Apostles did not only Ordain Presbyters and Deacons in the several Churches they planted but also Apostles or Bishops to preside over 'em and if their Ordaining of Presbyters be an argument of the perpetuity of the Office of a Presbyter as the Presbyterians themselves contend it is why should not their Ordaining Bishops also be as good an Argument of the perpetuity of the
of the Principal of the twelve Apostles and S. Iames was not so much as one of that number yet in the Church of Ierusalem he had the Priority of them both now considering that S. Iames is called an Apostle and considering the Preference he had in all these instances above the other Apostles at Ierusalem it is at least highly probable that he was peculiarly the Apostle of the Church of Ierusalem but if to all this evidence we add the most early Testimonies of Christian Antiquity we shall advance the Probability to a Demonstration for by the unanimous consent of all Ecclesiastical Writers S. Iames was the first Bishop of Ierusalem for so Hegesippus who lived very near the times of the Apostles tells us that Iames the Brother of our Lord called by all men the Iust received the Church of Ierusalem from the Apostles vid. Euseb. lib. 2. c. 23. so also S. Clement as he is quoted by the same Author l. 2. c. 1. tells us that Peter Iames and Iohn after the Assumption of Christ as being the men that were most in favour with him did not contend for the Honour but chose Iames the Just to be Bishop of Ierusalem and in the Apostolical Constistitutions that pass under the name of S. Clement which though not so ancient as is pretended yet are doubtless of very early Antiquity the Apostles are brought in thus speaking Concerning those that were ordained by us Bishops in our life time we signifie to you that they were these Iames the Brother of our Lord was Ordained by us Bishop of Ierusalem c. so also S. Ierom. de script Eccles. tells us that S. Iames immediately after the Passion of our Lord was ordained Bishop of Ierusalem by the Apostles And S. Cyril who was afterwards Bishop of that Church and therefore a most Authentick Witness of the Records of it calls Saint Iames the first Bishop of that Diocess Catech. 16. To all which we have the concurrent Testimonies of S. Austin S. Chrysostom Epiphanius S. Ambrose and a great many others and S. Ignatius himself who was an immediate Disciple of the Apostles makes S. Stephen to be a Deacon of S. Iames Ep. ad Trall and therefore since Stephen was a Deacon of the Church of Ierusalem S. Iames whose Deacon he was must necessarily be the Bishop of it Upon this account therefore S. Iames is called an Apostle in Scripture because by being Ordained by the Apostles Bishop of Ierusalem he had the Apostolick Power and Authority conferred on him for since it is apparent he was none of the Twelve to whom the Apostleship was at first confined he could no otherwise become an Apostle than by deriving the Apostleship from some of the Twelve and therefore since that Apostleship which he derived from the Twelve was only Episcopal Superiority over the Church of Ierusalem it hence necessarily follows that the Episcopacy was the Apostleship derived and communicated from the Primitive Apostles The second Instance of the Apostles Communicating their Apostolick Superiority to others is Epaphroditus who in Phil. 2.25 is stiled the Apostle of the Philippians But I suppose it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my Brother and companion in labour and fellow souldier 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but your Apostle for so S. Ierom Com. Gal. 1.19 Paulatim tempore precedente alii ab his quos Dominus elegerat Ordinati sunt Apostoli sicut ille ad Philippenses sermo declarat dicens necessarium existimavi Epaphroditum c. i. e. by degrees in process of time others were ordained Apostles by those whom our Lord had chosen as that passage to the Philippians shews I thought it necessary to send unto you Epaphroditus your Apostle And Theodoret upon the place gives this reason why he is here called the Apostle of the Philippians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he was intrusted with Episcopal Government as being their Bishop so that here you see Epaphroditus is made an Apostle by the Apostles and his Apostleship consists in being made Bishop of Philippi A third instance is that of Titus and some others with him 2 Cor. 8.23 Whether any do inquire of Titus he is my partner and fellow helper concerning you or our Brethren be inquired of they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostles of the Churches and the glory of Christ where it is plain they are not called the Apostles of the Churches merely as they were the Messengers of the liberality of the Churches of Macedonia for it was not those Churches but S. Paul that sent them vers 22. and therefore since they were not Apostles in relation to those Churches whose liberality they carried it must be in relation to some particular Churches over which they had Apostolical Authority and that Titus had this Authority over the Church of Crete is evident both from S. Pauls Epistle to him and from Primitive Antiquity As for Saint Pauls Epistle there are sundry passages in it which plainly speak him to be vested with Apostolical Superiority over that Church so Chap. 1. vers 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldst set things in order that are wanting and ordain Elders in every City as I have appointed thee For in the first place S. Paul here gives him the supreme judgment of things that were wanting with an absolute power to reform and correct them which is a plain demonstration of his Superiority in that Church Secondly he Authorizes him to ordain Elders in every City and whether these Elders were Bishops or Presbyters is of very little consequence as to the present debate for first it is of undoubted certainty that there were Presbyters in the Church of Crete before Titus was left there by the Apostle and secondly it is as evident that those Presbyters had no Power to ordain Elders in every City as Titus had for if they had what needed S. Paul to have left Titus there for that purpose What need he have left Titus there with a new power to do that which the Presbyters before him had sufficient power to do For if the Presbyters had before the power of Ordination in them this new power of Titus's would have been not only in vain but mischievous it would have look'd like an invasion of the Power of the Presbyters for S. Paul to restrain Ordination to Titus if before him it had been common to the whole Presbytery and upon that account have rather proved an occasion of strife and contention than an expedient of peace and good order From hence therefore it is evident that Titus had a Power in the Church of Crete which the Presbyters there before him had not and this Power of his extended not only to the establishment of good Order and the Ordaining of Elders but also to rebuking with all authority i. e. correcting obstinate offenders with the spiritual Rod of Excommunication chap. 2. vers 15. and taking cognisance of Heretical Pravity so as first to
universal conformity of the Primitive Church to the Episcopal Government it remains that if any credit may be given either to those Writers that lived in the Apostolick age or to those who immediately succeeded 'em it is evident from their unanimous Testimonies that the Episcopacy is nothing else but only the Apostolick superiority derived from the hands of the Apostles in a continued succession from one Generation to another and to reject their Testimony is not only very unreasonable there being at least as much reason why we should reject all ancient History but also of very dangerous consequence since 't is from thence that we derive the very Canon of Scripture and so we may as well reject it in this instance as in the other IV. And lastly That the rightful Government of the Church of Christ is Episcopal is evident also from our Saviours declared allowance and approbation of the Primitive practice in this matter viz. in those seven Epistles which he sent by S. Iohn to the seven Churches of Asia all which he directs particularly to the seven Angels of those Churches whom he not only stiles the seven Stars in his own right hand or the seven lights of those seven Churches Vid. Rev. 1.20 and Rev. 2.1 but in every Epistle particularly owns 'em for his Angels or Messengers if therefore we can prove that these seven Angels were at that time the seven Bishops that presided over both the Clergy and Laity of those seven Churches they will be an unanswerable instance of our Saviours allowance and approbation of the Episcopal Order In order therefore to the clearing this matter I shall shew First That they were single persons Secondly That they were persons of great Authority in those Churches Thirdly That they were the Presidents or Bishâ—ps of those Churches First That they were single Persons is evident because they are all along mentioned as such the Angel of the Church of Ephesus in the singular number the Angel of the Church of Smyrna and so of all the rest and so every where in the Body of the Epistles they are all along addrest to in the singular number I know thy works and thy labour nevertheless I have a few things against thee remember whence thou art fallen repent and do thy first works and the like in all which our Saviour plainly writes to 'em as to single persons It is true what he writes to them he writes not only to them personally but also to the People under their Government and inspection and therefore sometimes he mentions the People Plurally so Chap. 2. ver 10. The Devil shall cast some of you into Prison and so ver 13. and ver 23. but this is so far from arguing that these Angels were not single persons that it argues the quite contrary since if they had not what reason can there be assigned why our Saviour should not mention them plurally as well as the People I know it is objected that the Angel of the Church of Thyatira is mentioned Plurally Chap. 2. ver 24. but unto you I say and unto the rest of Thyatira where by you it is supposed must be meant the Angel and by the rest of Thyatira the People To which I answer that in the ancient Greek Manuscripts and particularly in that at S. Iames's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or and is left out and so the words run thus but unto you the rest of Thyatira or to the rest of you at Thyatira which is set in opposition to those of Thyatira that had been seduced into the Sect of Iezebel and therefore cannot be understood of the Angel who is all along mentioned in the singular number wherefore had he not been a single person no account can be given why he should be mentioned singly and the rest of Thyatira Plurally But then Secondly That these single persons were of great Authority in those Churches is evident not only by that honourable title of Angel that is given them which plainly shews them to be persons of Office and Eminence and that not only by our Saviours directing his Epistles to them to be communicated by them to their several Churches but also from that authority which the Angel of Ephesus exercised there and which the Angels of Pergamus and Thyatira ought to have exercised but did not For as for the Angel of Ephesus he is commended for trying them which said they were Apostles and were not and discovering them to be liars which words plainly denote a Iuridical Trial and Conviction of some person or persons who pretended to Apostolical Authority but upon examination were found to be Cheats and Impostors and then as for the Angel of the Church of Pergamus he is blamed for having in his Church those that held the Doctrine of Balaam or of the Nicolaitans which plainly shews that he had power to remedy it by casting them out of the Church for if he had not how could he have been justly blamed for suffering them And the same may be said of the Angel of the Church of Thyatira who is also blamed for suffering the woman Jezebel which was not in his power to prevent unless we suppose him to have Authority to eject her and her Followers But then Thirdly and lastly That these single persons were the Presidents or Bishops of those Churches is also evident from the most Primitive Antiquity for so in the Anonymus Tract of Timothy's Martyrdom recorded in Biblioth Pat. n. 244. we are told that when S. Iohn the Apostle returned from his Exile in Patmos which was two or three years after he wrote his Revelations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. that being assisted with the presence of the seven Bishops of that Province he assumed to himself the government of it Now that these seven Bishops were the same with those seven Angels he wrote to in his Revelations is evident because all those seven Churches in which those seven Angels presided lay within the Circuit of the Lydian or Proconsular Asia of which Ephesus was the Metropolis and therefore who else can we so fairly suppose these seven Bishops to be by whom he governed the Province of Ephesus as the seven Angels of those seven Churches which were all of them within that Province and S. Austin expresly calls the Angel of the Church of Ephesus the Proepositus Ecclesiae i. e. the Governour of the Church Ep. 162. and speaking of those seven Angels he stiles them Episcopi sive praepositi Ecclesiarum the Bishops or Governours of the Churches Comment in Revel so also the Commentaries under the name of S. Ambrose referring to these Angels in 1 Cor. c. 11. expresly tells us that by those Angels he means the Bishops and that they were so is most indubitably evident of the Angel of the Church of Smyrna in particular who could be no other than S. Polycarp who was most certainly made Bishop of Smyrna some years before the writing these Epistles and continued Bishop of
find in Scripture that all Ecclesiastick Commissions were either given by the hands of some of those first Apostles who received their Commission immediately from our Saviour or else by some of those secondary Apostles that were admitted into Apostolick Orders by them which secondary Apostles as was shewn before were the same with those whom we now call Bishops for so in Acts 6.3.6 the seven first Deacons we read of were Ordained by the Apostles the whole number of the Disciples being present but the Apostles only appointing and laying their hands on them and in Acts 14.23 we are told that Paul and Barnabas two of the Apostles ordained Elders in every Church that is of Lystra Iconium and Antioch and though these two were Ordained Apostles of the Gentiles by certain Prophets and Teachers in the Church of Antioch Acts 13.1.3 yet there is no doubt but those Prophets and Teachers where such as had received the Apostolick Character being ordained by the Apostles Bishops of the Churches of Syria for otherwise how could they have derived it For so Iudas and Silas are called Prophets Acts 15.32 and yet ver 22. they are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Rulers among the Brethren or Bishops of Iudea and afterwards we find that Ordination was confined to such as had been admitted to the Apostolate for so the power of laying on of hands in the Church of Ephesus was committed by S. Paul to Timothy whom he himself by the laying on of hands had ordained the Apostle or Bishop of that Church 1 Tim. 5.22 1 Tim. 1.6 so also the power of Ordaining in the Church of Crete was by S. Paul committed to Titus whom he had also Ordained the Apostle or Bishop of that Church Tit. 1.5 for this cause left I thee in Crete to ordain Elders in every City Thus all through the whole Scripture History we find the power of Ordination administred by such and none but such as were of the Apostolick Order viz. either by the Prime Apostles or by the secondary Apostles or Bishops And if we consult the Primitive Antiquities which to be sure in matters of fact at least are the best Interpreters of Scripture we shall always find the power of giving Orders confined and limited to Bishops which is so undeniable that S. Ierom himself who endeavours his utmost to equalize Presbyters with Bishops is yet fain to do it with an excepta Ordinatione Ep. ad Evagr. Quid facit excepta Ordinatione Episcopus quod Presbyter non faciat What can the Bishop do except Ordaining that the Presbyter may not do also III. Another peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of the Church is to execute that spiritual Iurisdiction which Christ hath established in it i. e. to Cite such as are accused of scandalous offences before their Tribunals to inspect and examine the Accusation and upon sufficient evidence of the truth of it to admonish the offender of his fault and in case he obstinately persist in it to exclude him from the Communion of the Church and from all the Benefits of Christianity till such time as he gives sufficient evidence of his Repentance and amendment and then to receive him in again For that Christ hath established such a jurisdiction in his Church is evident from that passage Mat. 18.16 17 18. Moreover if thy Brother shall trespass against thee go tell him his fault between him and thee alone if he shall hear thee thou hast gain'd thy Brother but if he will not hear thee then take with thee one or two more that in the mouth of two or three Witnesses every word may be established i. e. that thou mayst be able in case he doth not then amend to produce sufficient testimony of his guilt before the Churches Tribunal to which thou art next to apply thy self and if he shall neglect to hear them i. e. to promise amendment upon their admonition take them along with thee and tell it to the Church that so she may examine the matter and upon thy proving his guilt by sufficient witness may Authoritatively admonish him to amend but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen man and a Publican i. e. give him over for a desperate sinner as one that is to be ejected from the Communion of the Church and no longer to enjoy the common benefits of a Christian for verily I say unto you that it is to you of the Church before whom this obstinate Offender is cited and accused for now he speaks no longer in the singular number Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven i. e. whomsoever ye shall for just cause eject from the Communion of the Church into the state of a Heathen man and a Publican I will certainly exclude out of Heaven unless he reconcile himself to you by Confession and promise of amendment and if thereupon you pardon him and receive him into the Churches Communion I will most certainly pardon him too if he perform his promise for that by binding and loosing upon Earth our Saviour means excluding out of the Church and receiving in again is evident from that Parallel passage Mat. 16.19 I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven where by the Keys of the kingdom of Heaven is plainly meant the Authority of a Steward to govern his Church or Family for so Isa. 22.21 22. God promises Eliachim that he would cloath him with the Robe of Shebna who was over the Houshold ver 15. i. e. Steward of the Kings Family and that he would commit Shebna 's Government into his hand c. and then it follows And the Key of the House of David will I lay upon his shoulders so he shall open and none shall shut and he shall shut and none shall open that is in short I will make him the Governour of the Family and give him power to admit or exclude what Servants he pleases and accordingly by the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven must be meant the Government of the Church for so Keys denote Authority to Govern vid. Rev. 3.7 and by binding and loosing the power of shutting out of or readmitting into it and therefore in Iohn 20.23 this binding and loosing is thus expressed whose sins ye remit or loose shall be remitted or loosed whose sins ye retain or keep bound shall be retained or kept bound for though the words are different from those in S. Matthew yet they are of the same import and signification and consequently our Saviours meaning must be the same here as there viz. whose sins you loose from the penalty of exclusion from the Church I also will loose from the penalty of exclusion out of Heaven and whose sins
and therefore the first distribution of it was into several Congregations which in Scripture are called by the name of Churches as being similar parts of the Catholick Church even as every breath of Air is called Air and every drop of water water For thus those Believers who were wont to assemble in any one particular house to worship God together are frequently called Churches as for instances the Church in the house of Priscilla and Aquila Rom. 16.5 The Church in the house of Nymphas 1 Cor. 16.19 The Church in the house of Philemon Col. 4.15 In which houses in all probability there was an upper Room Consecrated and set apart according to the Custom of the Jews for divine Worship in which upper Rooms not only the Believers of the Family but several other neighbouring Christians were wont to assemble for the publick exercise of Divine Worship And so where ever the Scripture speaks of several Churches in the same Country as for instances the Churches of Iudea Gal. 1.22 of Samaria and Galileâ— Acts 9.31 it is evident that by these Churches no more is meant but only the several Congregations of Believers in those several Churches But these Congregations growing numerous there was a second distribution made of them by which many of those Congregations neighbouring upon one another were collected into one body under one head or Bishop who was the common guide and Pastor of all the Members whether Lay or Clergy appertaining to them And these Collections of several Congregations under their several Bishops or Governours are in Scripture also frequently called Churches for thus for instance the Church of Corinth contained in it several Congregations and therefore though in the Dedication of his Epistle the Apostle calls it the Church of God in the singular number which is at Corinth 1 Cor. 1.2 yet in the Epistle he enjoyns that the women should keep silence in the Churches 1 Cor. 14.34 which is a plain Evidence that in that Church there were several Churches or Congregations and so also we read of the Churches of Asia and Syria Cilicia and Macedonia all which were large Countries and did without doubt contain in them several Congregations of Christians and thus also we read of the Church of Ierusalem in the singular number and so of Antioch Ephâ—sus c. which Churches doubtless consisted of several Congregations in and about thâ—se Populous Cities which were all united into one body under the care and inspection of one Bishop or Governour Now as the first distribution of the Catholick Church into distinct Congregations was made for the convenience of Worship it being impossible for the whole Church when it began to encrease and enlarge it self to celebrate the divine Offices by the Ministry of one and the same Pastor so this second dâ—stribution of it into particular Churches consisting of several Congregations was made for the convenience of Government and Discipline it being impossible for the whole Church to maintain its Order Government and Discipline under the single inspection of any one Bishop or Governour But yet notwithstanding thâ—se distributions the Churches unity still remains for as the Empire was but one notwithstanding that for the convenience of Society and Government it was distributed into several Cities and Regions and those into several Provinces because they were all incorporated together under one Civil head the Emperor so the Church is but one though for the convenience of Worship and Government it be distributed into several Congregations and those into several particular Churches or Episcopacies because they are all incorporate under one spiritual Head even Jesus Christ the supreme Bishop and Pastor of our Souls Sixthly It is the universal Society of all Christian People distributed into particular Churches under lawful Governours and Pastors and it is this indeed that constitutes them distinct Churches viz. their being joyned and united together under distinct Pastors and Governours For thus a single Congregation is a distinct Church because all the Members of it do locally Communicate together in all the Offices of Divine Worship administred to them by a distinct Pastor and so also a Collection of several Congregations is a distinct Church because they all participate together of the direction and conduct of a distinct Governour For as I shewed before the reason of these distributions of the Catholick Church first into single Congregations was the Convenience of Worship and then into several Collections of several Congregations was the Convenience of Government and therefore since that which serves the convenience of Worship is the having distinct Pastors to administer it and that which serves the convenience of Government is the having distinct Rulers to exercise it it hence necessarily follows that that which makes a Congregation a distinct distribution of the Catholick Church must be its worshipping together under a distinct Pastor and that which makes a Collection of Congregations a distinct distribution of the Catholick Church must be its being united together under a distinct Governour because without their Pastor or their Governour they want the formal reason of their being distributed into distinct Churches And indeed there is no Church whatsoever whether it be a single Congregation or a Collection of Congregations can act as a Church without a Pastor or Governour No Congregation can lawfully communicate in the publick Offices of Divine Worship without a lawful Pastor to administer it no Collection of Congregations can lawfully exert any act of Church-Government without having an authorized Governour to exercise it For the administration of all Church-Offices is committed by our Saviour into the hands of the Churches Officers it is to them that he hath given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven i. e. Authority to admit or exclude or readmit men into the Communion of the Church It is they alone whom he hath made the Keepers of the Seals of the New Covenant viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper they alone whom he hath authorized to teach the Gospel to bless the People and to offer up the Publick Prayers of Christian Assemblies And these are the proper acts of a Church considered as a Church so that without Pastors or Governours there is no Church can perform any of those acts that are proper to a Church and therefore since all action proceeds from the Essence of the Agent Pastors and Governours without which Churches as such cannot act must necessarily be essential to Churches and hence the Apostle tells us that the great purpose for which Christ ordained Apostles Prophets Evangelists and Pastors and Teachers was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the compacting or joyning together the Saints as one body in Church-Communion and Society Eph. 4.11 12. and hence also you find the Churches of Asia following the number of the Angels or Rulers of them Rev. 1.20 which plainly implies that therefore they were seven distinct Churches because they had seven distinct Rulers or Bishops and therefore though the Ordination of Pastors and
them whether it be Fear or Sorrow or Ioy and it being in their power to excite our Passions to what degree they please there is no doubt but that being ministring Spirits they can and do minister Ioy and Comfort to us when ever our case and circumstances require it IV. Another instance of the Ministry of Angels in the Kingdom of Christ is their protecting his Subjects against the Rage and Fury of evil Spirits for considering with what a fierce and indefatigable malice those malignant spirits which in vast numbers rove about in the Air are animated against mankind and especially against the Subjects of Christ their most dreaded and implacable enemy and considering also the mighty power they have as they are Angels to do mischief it is not to be imagined but that were they not opposed and restrained by a mightier power than their own they would never be able to forbear exercising their direful rage and cruelty upon us till they had converted this Earth into Hell and made this School of our Probation the place of our Torments and as for the Kingdom of Christ whose Subjects have so solemnly renounced their Yoke and Dominion to be sure they would never cease infesting it with the fiery darts of their malice till they had utterly ruined and destroyed them and therefore to prevent their mischievous attempts God in mercy hath thought meet to commit us to the Guardianship of his holy Angels and to send them forth under the Conduct of Iesus our Mediator to fight against these Hellish powers in the defence of his Church and People for so God promised Ierusalem Zech. 2.5 that he would be as a wall of fire round about her i. e. as the most learned Expositors suppose by surrounding her with a Guard of Angels whom in the defence of his People against evil Angels he maketh a flaming fire as the Psalmist expresses it Psal. 104.4 and in Rev. 12.7 we read of a War in Heaven or the airy Region of which the Devil is called the Prince Michael and his Angels fought against the Dragon and the Dragon fought and his Angels which War Michael undertook as the foregoing verses tell us in the defence of the Woman that was cloathed with the Sun which all agree was the Christian Church so also in verse 9. of Iude's Epistle we read that Michael the Archangel contended and disputed with the Devil about the body of Moses or Jewish Church so called for the same reason that the Christian Church is called the Body of Christ. And it is very probably supposed that that Hedge which the Devil complained God had set about Iob and about his house by which he was hindered from breaking in upon him was no other than a Guard of Angels by which he was driven back as oft as he attempted to execute his Rage and Malice upon him Chap. 1.10 Now by what means or instruments the good Angels war against and repel the evil ones is I conceive an enquiry beyond our Cognisance Revelation from whence we receive all our notions of the state and Oeconomy of the invisible world being wholly silent in the case only thus much we may say without any way presuming beyond our Capacity that spiritual Agents can as easily strike upon spirits as bodily Agents do upon bodies and though we who are Spectators only of corporeal motion can give no account of the manner how one spirit acts upon another yet there is no reason at all to doubt but that they have some way of impressing one another and communicating to each other a mutual sense and feeling of each others pleasures and displeasures and if so then it is easie to suppose that the more powerful any spirit is the stronger and more exquisite impressions of its displeasure it can make upon other Spirits and consequently that the Good Angels who by preserving their innocence and improving their perfections have augmented and redoubled their natural strength and vigour are much more powerful than the bad ones who have rather impaired it and so are much more able to withstand and repel the violent impressions of the bad Angels than the bad Angels can theirs so that though the bad Angels may and oftentimes do resist and oppose the good yet they can never conquer them but in the conclusion are still forced to flee before them as being unable to withstand their more powerful impressions Since therefore we wrestle not with flesh and bloud i. e. only with flesh and bloud but against Principalities against Powers against the Rulers of the darkness of this World against spiritual wickednesses in high Places i. e. against the several Ranks of Devils that are in the Air under the Command and Conduct of Beelzebub their Prince Eph. 6.12 And since these Apostate Spirits are by much too strong and powerful for us so that were we left to grapple with them alone by our own single strength they would infallibly vanquish and lead us captive to eternal ruine God hath thought meet to subject his holy Angels to the command of our compassionate Mediator that so when ever we are too hardly beset by these evil spirits he might send them forth to guard and protect us against them and either to assist us in our conflicts with them or to chase them away from us when we are no longer able to withstand them and accordingly we have a sure word of promise that if we resist the Devil he shall fly away from us Iam. 4.7 not that our weak resistance is in it self sufficient to put those daring and mighty Spirits to flight but the meaning without doubt is that if when they assault us with any temptation to sin we do but oppose them with a sincere resolution God will not permit us to be vanquished by them but when ever they press too hard upon us will be sure to send down some good Angel to us to repel and drive them away from us for so he hath promised that he will not suffer us to be tempted above what we are able but will with the Temptation also make a way to escape that we may be able to bear it 1 Cor. 10.13 which plainly implies that should God suffer him the Devil can tempt us above what we are able and this without doubt he is ordinarily hindered from by the timely interpositions of the holy Angels who when our strength begins to fail are always ready to second us and with their victorious arms to encounter and put to flight those evil spirits that do so importunately tempt us V. Another instance of the Ministry of Angels in the Kingdom of Christ is their furthering and assisting his Subjects in the Works and Offices of Religion for since they are said to minister to them who shall be heirs of salvation there is no doubt but that they minister to them in the discharge of their Religious Obligations upon which their Salvation depends and since as our Saviour assures us there
Office of a Bishop If either be perpetual why not both if not both why either and how can we argue a perpetual power of Ordination in the Church from the Ordination of Timothy and Titus for instance as the Presbyterians do Vide Ius Divin p. 159.167 if the Office they were Ordained to were not perpetual and if it were perpetual then so is Episcopacy which is in nothing different from that which they exercised in their Churches III. That the true Government of the Church is Episcopal is evident also from the Universal Conformity of the Primitive Church thereunto It is objected by the Adversaries of the Episcopal Government that though our Saviour indeed Instituted a superior Order of Church Officers viz. his Twelve Apostles to precide over the rest and Govern his Church yet this was an extraordinary Commission which he never intended they should derive down to the Church as a perpetual Model of Government but was limited to the persons of the Apostles and was to expire with ' em Now that it was not limited to the persons of the Apostles is evident since as it hath been shewn before the Astles derived it to others which they could not have done without violating their trust and exceeding the bounds of their Commission had it been appropriated to their persons so that it must be allowed either that they proceeded irregularly in transferring their superiority to others or that their Commission did impower them to transfer it and therefore if it appear not only that they might transfer it to some for the Government of some Churches by vertue of their Commission of which the above cited instances are a full demonstration but also that they Universally transferred it to others for the Government of all other Churches then it is certain that either they mistook the intent of our Saviours Commission or the intent of it was to impower 'em to transfer it unversally as a standing and perpetual Form of Ecclesiastical Government in short if they understood the intendment of their own Commission as to be sure they did being guided by the Spirit into all Truth to be sure they would never have communicated their Apostolick Superiority to any had it not been our Saviours intention when he Commissioned 'em to Authorize 'em so to do and for the same reason we may be sure that so far forth as they did communicate it it was our Saviours intention that they should now as was shewn before to some they did communicate it for the Government of some Churches as to Timothy and Titus for instance for the Government of the Churches of Ephesus and Crete from whence it is evident that it was our Saviours intention that they should communicate it to some and for the same reason if it be made appear that they did communicate it universally for the Government of all other Churches it will necessarily follow that it was our Saviours intention they should communicate it as an universal form of Church-Government Now whether they did communicate it universally or no is a question about matter of Fact and as such is decidable only by the Testimony of the most competent witnesses and the most competent witness in this case is the Christian Church in the Ages next succeeding the Apostles which Church attests with one universal consent the universal derivation of a Superiour Order of Ecclesiastick Officers from the Apostles to preside over the Churches of Christ. And some Christian Writers we have who were living in the very days of the Apostles and were their immediate Scholars and Disciples others again who lived in their days and were their Disciples who lived in the Apostles and others who immediately succeeded these from all which we have ample Testimonies of the continued Succession of this superiour Order even from the Apostles to whom our Saviour first derived it Out of all which I shall only produce some few instances out of an infinite number that might be given Of the first sort are S. Clement Bishop of Rome and S. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch S. Clement who as Frenaeus tells us saw the Apostles and conversed familiarly with 'em makes mention in his Epistle to the Corinthians of three Orders of Ecclesiastical Officers in his time whom he calls the High Priest the Priests and the Levites which words can be no otherwise understood than of the Bishop Presbyter and the Deacons S. Ignatius who was the Disciple of S. Peter and in his life-time Bishop of Antioch is so full and express in all those six Epistles he wrote on the way to his Martyrdom for the derivation of this superiour Order from the Apostles that the adversaries of this Order have no other way to evade him but by condemning those Epistles for Counterfeits from which injurious sentence they have of late been so triumphantly vindicated by a Learned Pen of our own that I dare say no man of Learning for the future will so far expose the Reputation of his Understanding and Modesty as to call 'em in question again Now in all these Epistles the holy Martyr not only distinguishes the Clergy into Bishops Presbyters and Deacons but strictly injoyns the two latter as well as the Laicks to be Dutiful and Obedient to the former and particularly in his Epistle to the Trallians what is the Bishop saith he but he that hath all Authority and Power what is the Presbytery but a sacred Constitution of Counsellors and Assessors to the Bishop what are the Deacons but imitators of Christ and Ministers to the Bishop as he was to the Father and as he every where enjoyns obedience to the Bishops as to the supreme Order in the Church of Christ so in the beginning of his Epistle to the Philadelphians he tells them that so many as belong to Christ are united to the Bishop and that so many as depart from him and his Communion and associate themselves with the accursed shall be cut off with them And in his Epistle to the Magnesians he tells them that it highly became them to obey their Bishop and not to contradict him in any thing for it is a terrible thing to contradict him because in so doing you do not so much despise him who is visible as the invisible God who will not be despised for his promotion is not from men but from God. And several of his Cotemporary Bishops he mentions by name viz. Onesimus Bishop of the Ephesians Policarp of the Smyrnians Polybius of the Trallians and Damas of the Magnesians and still as he mentions them he highly commends the Presbyters and Deacons for their obedience to them So in the beginning of his Epistle to the Magnesians Having been so happy as to see you by your worthy Bishop Damas and your worthy Presbyters viz. Bassus and Apollinus and Zotion your Deacon whom I cannot but commend for his obedience to the Bishop and the Presbytery you ought not to contemn the youth of your Bishop but to pay him all
veneration as I know your holy Presbyters do according to the appointment of God the Father And in his Epistle to the Ephesians Let us be careful saith he that we do not oppose the Bishop as we would be obedient to God and if any man observe the silence of his Bishop let him reverence him so much the more for every one that the Master of the Family appoints to be his Steward we ought to receive him as the Master himself and therefore it is evident we ought to respect the Bishop as our Lord himself from whence I infer first that at the writing of these Epistles which was not above eight or nine years after the decease of S. Iohn there were Bishops every where constituted over the Churches of Christ for he not only mentions several Churches that had Bishops actually presiding over them but declares Bishops to be of Divine Ordination and that they were to be obeyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the appointment of God the Father and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they had their promotion not from men but from God and not only so but in his Epistle to the Trallians he bids them obey their Bishop as Christ and his Apostles had commanded them in which he necessarily supposes Bishops to be instituted by Christ and his Apostles and then he goes on He who is within the Altar that is within the Communion of the Church is clean 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. He is without the Altar who doth any thing without the Bishop and Presbyters and Deacons and if any Christian acting without the Bishop c. was without the Communion of the Church then to be sure no Community of Christians that did so could be esteemed a part or Member of the Church and therefore since according to the Doctrine of this Primitive Age Bishops were a Divine Ordinance and were looked upon as necessary to the very Constitution of Churches we may from hence justly conclude that there were then no Churches without them And secondly we may from hence also infer that since there were Bishops in this early Age presiding over the Churches of Christ several of them at least received their Episcopal Orders immediately from the hands of the Apostles For at the time when these Epistles were written Ignatius himself had been above forty years Bishop of Antioch at which time sundry of the Apostles were living and therefore considering the singular Eminence of the Church of Antioch whereof he was Bishop as being immediately planted by S. Peter and S. Paul and that wherein the Disciples of Iesus first received the name of Christians and considering also that it was the constant practice of the Apostle to Ordain Elders in all the Churches they planted it is highly probable that he received his Ordination immediately from their hands and so S. Chrysostom Tom. 5. Edit Savil. p. 499. expresly tells us that he did not so much admire Ignatius for that he was accounted worthy of so great a Dignity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. but because he obtained his dignity from those holy men and the sacred hands of the blessed Apostles had been laid upon his head And the same may be said of Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna of whom Ignatius makes honourable mention and indeed it is not to be imagined that the Christian Churches would ever have so universally admitted of Bishops as it is apparent they did in Ignatius's time when the Apostles were living had not some of them at least derived their Authority from the Apostles immediately and considering how much S. Iohn who survived the Apostles was reverenced to the last through all the Christian Churches what likelihood is there that those very Churches should so far contemn both him and them even whilst they were living among them as to admit of a new order of men without their Authority to Oversee and Govern them but that de facto the Apostles did with their own hands Ordain several Bishops to preside over several Churches is most certain if any credit may be given to Ecclesiastical History which assures us that they ordained Dionysius the Areopagite Bishop of Athens Caius of Thessalonica Archyppus of Colosse Onesimus of Ephesus Antipas of Pergamus Euphroditus of Philippi Crescens of the Gauls Erastus of Macedonia Trophimus of Arles Iason of Tarsus Titus of Corinth Onisiphorus of Colophon Quartus of Berytus Paul the Proconsul of Narbona Vid. Bishop Tailor of Episcopacy Sect. 18. But then thirdly and lastly from hence I also infer That the Bishops of this Age were look'd upon as a Superiour Order to all other Ecclesiastical Officers for Ignatius not only enjoyns the Presbyters and Deacons to obey their Bishops but also presses them thereunto by the Command of Christ and if by Christs Command they were to obey their Bishops then by Christs Institution their Bishops were their Superiours Thus much therefore we are assured of by the Testimony of Ignatius that in the Apostolick Age Bishops were universally admitted in the Churches of Christ that they derived their Authority from the hands of the Apostles and that by vertue of that Authority they were Superiour to all other Ecclesiastical Officers and this is all we contend for And now let us proceed to the Testimony of the Writers of the next Age who conversed with those that were Conversant with the Apostles of which number are Iustin Martyr Hegesippus Dionysius Bishop of Corinth Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus The first of which was converted to Christianity about the year of our Lord 133. which is not above twenty five years after the death of S. Iohn This Writer in his Apology for Christianity to the Emperour Antoninus giving an account of the manner of their Publick Worship makes mention of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. a President or presiding Ecclesiastick in the Mother Church who did there Consecrate the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament and give it to the Deacons to distribute it to such as were present and carry it to such as were absent and who did receive the Charities of the People and dispose and manage the Stock of the Church Now that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Bishops Title is evident for so Dionysius Bishop of Corinth who was Iustin Martyrs Cotemporary uses the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 promiscuously stiling Publius Bishop of Athens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or President and Quadratus his Successor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bishop vid. Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 23. Next after him we have the Testimony of Hegesippus who as S. Ierom de script Eccles. tells us lived very near to the Apostolick Age he wrote five Books of Commentaries some fragments of which are preserved in Eusebius his History in which he not only makes mention of several Bishops with whom he conversed in his Journey from Iudea to Rome and of Primas Bishop of Corinth by name and afterwards of Anicetus Soter
and Elutherius Bishops of Rome successively but also tells us that after Iames the Iust who was the first Bishop of Ierusalem had suffered Martyrdom Simeon Cleophae was made Bishop of that Church because he was of the Kindred of our Lord vid. Euseb. lib. 4. cap. 22. Not long after him Dionysius Bishop of Corinth makes mention in several Epistles of several Bishops by name and particularly of Publius and Quadratus successive Bishops of Athens of Dionysius the Areopagite the first Bishop of that Church of Philip Bishop of Gortyna in Crete of Palma Bishop of Amastris in Pontus of Pinytus Bishop of the Gnossians and of Soter Bishop of Rome vid. Euseb lib. 4. cap. 23. About the same time lived Irenaeus Bishop of Lions who as himself tells us in his Epistle to Florinus had often seen Polycarp the Disciple of S. Iohn and did very well remember his person and behaviour when he discoursed to the Multitude the intimate conversation he had with S. John and the rest of the Apostles who had seen our Lord. And from him we have this express Testimony concerning the matter in debate We can reckon up those who were Ordained Bishops by the Apostles in the Churches who they were that succeeded them even down to our times for the Apostles would have them to be in all things perfect and unreprovable whom they left to be their Successors and to whom they delivered their Apostolick Authority And then he goes on and gives us a Catalogue of Eleven Bishops of Rome by name beginning from Linus to whom he tells us S. Peter and S. Paul Episcopatum administrandae Ecclesiae tradiderunt i. e. delivered the Episcopal power of Governing that Church and ending with Elutherius who was the twelfth and did then actually preside in the Episcopal Chair and that by Bishops in this Age was meant such as presided over Presbyters as well as Laicks is evident by the demonstration Clemens Alexandrinus makes who was Irenaeus his Cotemporary between the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Strom. 6. i. e. the Processes of Bishops Presbyters and Deacons and a little before speaking of the dignity of the Presbytery he tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. that it was not honoured with the first Seat or placed in the first Class of the Ecclesiastick Orders which plainly shews that then there was an Order above the Presbytery viz. the Bishops whom presently after he mentions as the first Order of Ecclesiasticks And that passage which Eusebius quotes from him out of his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lately published is a plain Argument that in his time Bishops were look'd on as a distinct Order from the rest of the Clergy for he tells us that when S. Iohn returned from Patmos to Ephesus he visited the neighbouring Provinces 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. partly that he might ordain Bishops and partly that he might set apart such for the Clergy as were pointed out to him by the Holy Spirit by which it is evident that in Clement's time at least and if he be not mistaken in S. Iohn's too the Bishops were a distinct Order from the rest of the Clergy viz. the Presbyters and Deacons Thus both in the Apostolick Age and that succeeding it we have abundant Testimony of the derivation of the superiority of the Apostolick Order from the Apostles to the Bishops of the Churches of Christ. And then for the next Age we have the concurrent Testimonies of Tertullian Origen and S. Cyprian not only of the continuance of this Apostolick superiority in the Church but also of the derivation of it from the Apostles themselves but we need not cite their words it being granted by the most learned Advocates of the Presbyterian Government that for several years before these Fathers viz. about the year of our Lord 140. the Episcopacy was every where received in the Church for they tell us that though the Apostles exercised a superiority over the other Ecclesiastical Orders yet they left none behind to succeed them in that power but the Church was every where governed by a Common Council of Presbyters but this Form of Government being found inconvenient as giving too much occasion for Schisms and Divisions it was at last universally agreed upon that one Presbyter should be chosen out to preside over all the rest and this say they was the beginning of the Episcopacy for which they cite that famous passage of S. Ierom Antequam Diaboli instinctu c. i. e. Before such time as through the instinct of the Devil divisions in Religion began and it was said among the People I am of Paul I am of Apollo and I of Cephas the Churches were Governed by Common Councils of Presbyters but afterwards every Presbyter reckoning such as he baptized to be his and not Christs it was decreed over all the World that one from among the Presbyters should be chosen and set over all the rest to whom should belong all the care of the Churches that so the seeds of Schisms might be destroyed which universal Decree as they guess was made about the year 140. Now not to dispute with them the sense of this passage but allowing it to bear their sense I shall only desire the Reader to consider First That it is the Testimony of one who lived long after the afore-cited Witnesses and so far less capable of attesting so early a matter of fact for some of the Witnesses above-cited were such as lived in the days of the Apostles others such as lived in their days who lived in the days of the Apostles and certainly these were much more competent Witnesses of what was done in the Apostles days than S. Ierom who was not born till about the year 330. almost one hundred years after Origen the latest and three hundred years after Clemens the earliest of the above-cited Witnesses and certainly to prefer the Authority of one single Witness who lived so long after the matter of fact to the unanimous attestations of so many earlier Witnesses is both immodest and irrational II. It is also to be considered that S. Ierom was a witness in his own cause in which case men of his warmth and passion are too too apt to exceed the limits of truth for the design of that passage was to curb the insolence of some Pragmatical Deacons who would needs advance themselves above the Presbyters which Saint Ierom being a Presbyter himself takes in high disdain and as the best of men are too prone to do when their own concerns are at stake bends the stick too much t'other way and depresses the Deacons too low and advances the Presbyters too high For III. In other places where he is not Biassed by partiality to his own Order he talks at a quite different rate so in Dial. advers Luciferian dost thou ask why one that is not Baptized by the Bishop doth not receive the Holy Ghost why it proceeds from hence that the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles
it a great many years after for so Ignatius who was his Cotemporary in his Epistle to that Church stiles him Polycarp your Bishop and earnestly exhorts his Presbyters and Deacons as well as the Laity to be subject to him and Irenaeus who personally knew him hath this passage concerning him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Polycarpus was not only instructed by the Apostles and did not only converse with many of those who had seen our Lord but by the Apostles who were in Asia was made Bishop of Smyrna Euseb. Hist. l. 4. c. 15. and in their Encyclical Epistle of his Martyrdom the whole Church of Smyrna stile him Bishop of the Catholick Church of Smyrna ibid. So also Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus who was thirty eight years old when Polycarp suffered tells us that he was Bishop and Martyr in Smyrna Euseb. Hist. l. 5. c. 24. And the same is attested by Tertullian Eusebius and S. Ierom and indeed by all Ecclesiastick antiquity so that it is a plain case that one of these Angels to whom S. Iohn writes was Bishop of the Church whereof he stiles him the Angel and since one was so to be sure all were so especially considering that very near if not at the very time when these Epistles were written we have certain accounts that there were Bishops actually presiding in these seven Churches So within twelve years after these Epistles were written Ignatius in his Epistle to the Ephesians makes mention of Onesimus their Bishop whom he exhorts them all as well Presbyters and Deacons as Laity to obey That there was also at the same time a Bishop in Philadelphia is abundantly evident from Ignatius his Epistle to that Church though he doth not name him and about the same time Carpus was Bishop of Thyatira as the ancient Roman Martyrology testifies and Segasis of Laodicea Vid. Euseb. Hist. lib. 4. c. 25. And Melito Bishop of Sardis ibid. And as for the Church of Pergamus Paraeus in his Commentary on Chap. 2. of the Revelations proves out of Aretas Caesariensis that Antipas that faithful Martyr mentioned Rev. 2.13 was Bishop of it immediately before the Angel of that Church to whom S. Iohn wrote and that that Angel was one Gaius who as he proves out of Clemens immediately succeeded Antipas in the Episcopal Chair Since therefore it is apparent that at the writing these Epistles to these seven Churches there was a Bishop actually presiding in one of them and that about the same time there were Bishops presiding also in all the rest there can be no colour of Reason to doubt but that all those Churches had Bishops in them when S. Iohn wrote to them and if so to be sure those Bishops being the Governours of those Churches and having the charge of them committed to them were those very Angels whom S. Iohn wrote to because he all along writes to them as to those who were the Overseers and Governours of their respective Churches and if those Angels were Bishops then in them our Saviour expresly allows and approves of the Episcopal Order since he not only dignifies them with the name of Angels but calls them stars in his own right hand The sum of all therefore is this If our Saviours own institution seconded by the practice of his Apostles upon it and succeeded by the Conformity of all the Primitive Churches to it and this Conformity of theirs authorized by the express approbation of our Saviour be a sufficient argument of the Divine Right of any form of Church-Government then must the Episcopal form which hath all these things you see to plead for it self be of Divine Right and Ordination Having thus shewn at large what that Ecclesiastick or spiritual Government is which Christ hath established in his Church I proceed Thirdly and lastly To shew what are the proper Ministries of this Government in the Kingdom of Christ and these are of two sorts First such as are common to the Bishops or Governours of the Church with the inferiour Officers and secondly such as are peculiar to the Bishops or Governours First Such as are common to the Bishops together with the inferiour Officers of the Church and these are 1. To teach the Gospel 2. To administer the Evangelical Sacraments 3. To offer up the Publick Prayers and Intercessions of Christian Assemblies I. To teach the Gospel which is the first Ministerial Act mentioned by our Saviour in the Commission which he gave his Apostles Go teach all Nations Mat. 28.19 and accordingly the Apostles declare Acts 6.2.4 that preaching the Word was one of the principal imployments appertaining to their Office but yet it is evident that it never was restrained to their Office for not only the Apostles but the seventy Disciples also were Commissioned to Preach the Gospel by our Saviour Luke 10.9 10 11. and even in the Apostles days not only they but Philip also and Stephen and Lucius of Cyrene who were no Apostles did yet preach the Gospel to the World and besides the Apostles there were Prophets Teachers and Evangelists that preached the Gospel as well as they But yet as for the Office of Preaching it is plain that none were ever admitted to it but either by immediate Commission from our Saviour or by Apostolick Ordination or by an immediate Miraculous Unction of the Holy Ghost by which they were inspired with the gift of Preaching and enabled freely and readily and without any study of their own to explain and prove and apply the Doctrines of the Gospel to their Hearers and that either in their own or other Languages as occasion required which gift was the same with that which is called in Scripture the gift of utterance and it being bestowed upon them for the publick benefit and edification of the Church the very bestowing it without any other Ordination was an immediate Mission from the Holy Ghost only they who pretended to it were to be tried by such as had the gift of discerning of Spirits vid. 1 Cor. 12.10 compared with 1 Cor. 14.29 and if upon that trial their pretence was found real they were owned and received without any more ado as authorized Preachers sent by the Holy Ghost and it was upon this extraordinary Mission as it seems very probable that those extraordinary Offices of Prophets and Evangelists were founded both which included Authority to preach the Gospel and therefore upon the Cessation of this extraordinary Mission those Offices ceased immediately with it as depending wholly upon it and from thenceforth none were ever admitted to the Office of Preaching but by ordinary Mission and Ordination from the Apostolate derived to the Bishops and Governours of the Church For though there are some very early instances of learned Lay-men that were admitted to preach upon some emergent occasions and upon special license from the Bishop yet can there no one instance be produced of any that were admitted to the Office of Preaching without Episcopal Ordination II. Another of the
which is the good of the Publick Since therefore the Church by Christs own institution is a governed Society of men we must either suppose its Government to be very lame and defective which would be to blaspheme the Wisdom of our Saviour or allow it to have a Legislative Power inherent in it But that de facto it hath such a Power in it is evident from the Practice of the Apostles who as all agree had the Reins of Church Government delivered into their hands by our Saviour for so in Acts 15.6 we are told that upon occasion of that famous Controversie about Circumcision the Apostles and Elders came together to consider of this matter where by the Elders by the consent of all Antiquity is meant the Bishops of Iudea Vid. Dr. Hammond on Acts 11. Note B. And after mature debate and deliberation this is the result of the Council It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burthen than these necessary things ver 28. so that those necessary things specified in the next verse were it seems laid upon them as a burthen i. e. legally imposed on them as matter of duty for herein it is plain the Apostles exercised a Legislative Power over those Christian Communities they wrote to viz. in requiring 'em to abstain from some things which were never prohibited before by any standing Law of Christanity and as the Apostles and Primitive Bishops made Laws by common consent for the Church in general so did they also by their own single authority for particular Churches to which they were more peculiarly related Thus St. Paul after he had prescribed some Rules to the Corinthians for their more decent communication of the Lords Supper tells them that other things he would set in order when he came among them 1 Cor. 11.34 but how could he otherwise do this than by giving them certain Laws and Canons for the better regulation of their Religious Offices so also 1 Cor. 16.1 the same Apostle makes mention of an Order or Canon which he gave to the Churches of Galatia which he enjoyns the Church of Corinth also to observe and in 1 Tim. 5. he gives Timothy several Ecclesiastical Rules to give in charge to his Church ver 7. so also Tit. 1.5 he tells Titus that for this cause he left him in Crete with Apostolick or Episcopal power that he might set in order the things that were wanting i. e. that by wholsom Laws and Constitutions he might redress those disorders and supply those defects which the shortness of S. Pauls stay there would not permit him to provide for By all which instances it is abundantly evident that the Governours of the Church have a Legislative Power inherent in them both to make Laws by common consent for the Regulation of the Church in general and to prescribe the rules of Decency and Order in their own particular Churches For what the Apostles and Primitive Bishops did to be sure they had Authority to do and whatsoever Authority they had they derived it down to their Successors And accordingly we find this Ecclesiastick Legislation was always administred by the Apostles Successors the Bishops who not only gave Laws both to the Clergy and Laity in their own particular Churches but also made Laws for the whole Church by common consent in their holy Councils wherein during the first four general Councils no Ecclesiastick beneath a Bishop was ever allowed a Suffrage unless it were by deputation from his Bishop and though in making Laws for their own Churches they generally conducted themselves by the advice and counsel of their Presbyters and sometimes also admitted them into their debates both in their Provincial and General Councils yet this was only in preparing the matter of their Laws But that which gave them the form of Laws was purely the Episcopal Authority and Suffrage and whatsoever was decreed either by the Bishop in Council with his Presbyters or by the Bishops in Council among themselves was always received by the Churches of Christ as Authentick Law. It is true this Legislative Power of the Church as was shewn before extends not so far as to controul the Decrees of the Civil Sovereign who is next to and immediately under God in all Causes and over all Persons Supreme and is no otherwise accountable by the Laws of Christianity than he was by the Laws of natural Religion and therefore as the Civil Sovereign cannot countermand Gods Laws so neither can the Church the Civil Sovereigns but yet as next to the Laws of God the Laws of the Civil Sovereign are to be obeyed so next to the Laws of the Civil Sovereign the Laws of the Church are to be obeyed II. Another peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of the Church is to Consecrate and Ordain to Ecclesiastical Offices For that those holy Ministries which Christ himself performed while he was on Earth such as preaching the Gospel administring the Evangelical Sacraments c. might be continued in his Church throughout all Generations he not only himself ordained his twelve Apostles a little before he left the World to perform those Ministries in his absence but in their Ordination transferred on them his own mission from the Father deriving upon them the same authority to ordain others that he had to ordain them that so they might derive their Mission to others as he did his to them through all succeeding Generations for this is necessarily implied in the Commission he gave them Iohn 20.21 As my Father hath sent me so send I you that is I do not only send you with full authority to act for me in all things as my Father sent me to act for him but I also send you with the same authority to send others that I now exercise in sending you for unless this be implied in their Mission he did not send them as his Father sent him unless he gave them the same authority to propagate their Mission to others that his Father gave him to propagate his Mission to them how could he say that he sent them as his Father sent him since he must have sent them without that very authority from his Father which he then exercised in sending them Now the Persons whom he sent were the Eleven Apostles as you will see by comparing this of S. Iohn with Luke 24.33.36 Mar. 16.14 Mat. 28.16 in all which places we are expresly told that it was the Eleven he appeared to when he gave this Commission and consequently it must be the Eleven to whom he gave it This Commission therefore of sending others being originally transferred by our Saviour upon the Apostolick Order no others could have right to transfer it to others but only such as were admitted of that Order none could give it to others but only those to whom Christ gave it and therefore since Christ himself gave it to none but Apostles none but Apostles could derive it and accordingly we
you keep bound or obliged to that Penalty I also will keep bound and obliged to this This is the Spirtual Iurisdiction which Christ hath established in his Church to bind or loose suspend or restore excommunicate or absolve and this he hath wholly deposited in the Episcopal Order For in all the above-cited places it was only to his Apostles that he derived this Iurisdiction they alone were the Stewards to whom he committed the Keys and Government of his Family and it was to them alone that he promised that they should sit upon twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel that is to Rule and Govern the spiritual Israel which is the Christian Church even as the Phylarchae or Chiefs of the Tribes governed the twelve Tribes of natural Israel Mat. 19.28 and hence in that Mystical representation of the Church by a City descending from Heaven Rev. 21. the Wall of it is said to have twelve foundations and upon them twelve names of the twelve Apostles ver 14. and those twelve foundations are compared to twelve precious stones to denote their power and dignity in the Church ver 19 20. and the Wall being exactly meted is found to be 144 Cubits that is twelve times twelve to denote that these twelve Apostles had each of them an equal portion allotted him in the Government and administration of the Church ver 17. This spiritual Iurisdiction therefore of governing the Church and administring the Censures of it being by our Saviour wholly lodged in the Apostolate none can justly claim or pretend to it but such as are of the Apostolick Order and accordingly in the Apostolick Age we find it was always administred either immediately by the Apostles themselves or by the Bishops of the several Churches to whom they communicated their Order for thus in the Church of Corinth it was S. Paul who pronounced the Sentence of Excommunication against the incestuous person for I verily as absent in body but present in spirit have judged or pronounced Sentence already as though I were present concerning him that hath done this deed 1 Cor. 5.3 and what he orders them to do ver 4 5. was only to declare and execute his Sentence and 2 Cor. 13.2 he threatens them that heretofore had sinned that if he came again he would not spare them and that by his not sparing them he meant that he would proceed against them with Ecclesiastical Censures is evident from ver 1. In the mouth of two or three Witnesses shall every word be established which are the very words of our Saviour Matt. 18.16 when he instituted the power of Censuring and then ver 10. he tells them that he wrote these things being absent lest being present he should use severity according to the power which the Lord had given them to edification and not to destruction by which it is plain he means the power of Excommunicating and 1 Cor. 4.21 he threatens to come to them with a Rod that is to chastise them with the Censures of the Church and with this Rod as he himself tells he chastised Hymenoeus and Alexander two stickling Hereticks in the Church of Ephesus whom he delivered unto Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme 1 Tim. 1.20 and as he frequently executed the Censures of the Church in his own Person so he derived this spiritual Iurisdiction to Timothy and Titus whom he Ordained Apostles or Bishops of the Church of Ephesus and Crete for so he orders Timothy against an Elder Receive not an Accusation but before two or three Witnesses which plainly implies his Authority to examine and try the causes even of the Elders themselves when they were accused and to punish them if he found them guilty for so it follows Them that sin rebuke before all that others also may fear 1 Tim. 5.19 20. so also he exhorts Titus to exercise this his spiritual Jurisdiction A man that is an Heretick after the first and second admonition reject Tit. 3.10 which plainly implies that he had an Authority inherent in him as he was the Apostle or Bishop of Crete to Cite Examine Admonish and Censure persons of erronious Principles and the same Authority it is evident was inherent in the Angels or Bishops of the seven Churches of Asia Thus the Bishop of Ephesus had Authority to try such as said they were Apostles and were not and to convict them for Liars Rev. 2.2 and the Bishop of Pergamus is blamed for tolerating the Sect of the Nicolaitans in his Church ver 14 15. and so also is the Bishop of Thyatira for suffering that woman Iezebel ver 20. which plainly implies that the Authority of curbing and correcting those profligate Sectaries was inherent in them else why should they be blamed any more than others for not restraining them From all which it is evident that the power of Christian Jurisdiction was Originally seated in the Apostolate and that throughout the Apostolick Age it was always exercised by such and only such as were admitted into that sovereign Order viz. either by the twelve Prime Apostles or by those secondary Apostles whom they ordained Bishops of particular Churches and accordingly we find in the Primitive Ages the Bishops were the sole administrators of this spiritual Iurisdiction and though ordinarily they administred it with the advice and concurrence of their Presbytery yet this was more than they thought themselves obliged to for thus S. Cyprian in the time of his recess did by his own single Authority Excommunicate Felicissimus Augendus and others of his Presbyters Ep. 38 39. and when Rogatianus a Bishop of his Metropolitick Church complained to him in a Synod of a disorderly Deacon he tells him that pro Episcopatus vigore Cathedrae authoritate i. e. by his own Episcopal authority without appealing to the Synod he might have chastised him And the fifth Canon of the first Nicene Council plainly shews that it was then the judgment of the Catholick Church that the power of spiritual Iurisdiction was wholly seated in the Bishops for it decrees that in every Province there should be twice a year a Council of Bishops to examine whether any person Lay or Clergy had been unjustly excommunicated by his Bishop which shews that then this Sentence was inflicted by the Bishop only though afterwards to prevent abuses it was decreed in the Council of Carthage that the Bishop should hear no mans Cause but in the presence of his Clergy and that his Sentence should be void unless it were confirmed by their presence but yet still the Sentence was peculiarly his and not his Clergies In some Churches indeed the Bishops did many times delegatâ— power to their Presbyters both to excommunicate and absolve as perhaps S. Paul himself did in the Church of Corinth but in this case the Presbyter was only the Bishops mouth and his Sentence received all its force from that Episcopal Authority he was armed with IV. Another peculiar Ministry of the Bishops and Governours of